Liberal Idea

This week Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed article that expresses my views on Social Security and Iraq. (There is a common denominator: George W. Bush tried to deceive the American public about both.) If you'd like to read the article in its entirety, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html

Let's get this information out. If you go to Krugman's page, you can email the article to friends and influentials.

Below are some excerpts from Krugman's article:

"...I'd like to revisit Social Security for a moment, because it's important to remember what Mr. Bush tried to get away with.

Many pundits and editorial boards still give Mr. Bush credit for trying to "reform" Social Security. In fact, Mr. Bush came to bury Social Security, not to save it. Over time, the Bush plan would have transformed Social Security from a social insurance program into a mutual fund, with nothing except a name in common with the system F.D.R. created.

In addition to misrepresenting his goals, Mr. Bush repeatedly lied about the current system. Oh, I'm sorry - was that a rude thing to say? Still, the fact is that Mr. Bush repeatedly said things that were demonstrably false and that his staff must have known were false. The falsehoods ranged from his claim that Social Security is unfair to African-Americans to his claim that "waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security."

Meanwhile, the administration politicized the Social Security Administration and used taxpayer money to promote a partisan agenda. Social Security officials participated in what were in effect taxpayer- financed political rallies, from which skeptical members of the public were excluded.

I'm writing about this in the past tense, but some of it is still going on. Last week Jo Anne Barnhart, the commissioner of Social Security, published an op-ed article claiming that Social Security as we know it was designed for a society in which people didn't live long enough to collect a lot of benefits. "The number of older Americans living now," wrote Ms. Barnhart, "is greater than anyone could have imagined in 1935."

Now, it turns out that an article on the Social Security Administration's Web site, "Life Expectancy for Social Security," specifically rejects the idea the Social Security was originally "designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits," and the related idea that the system faces problems from "a supposed dramatic increase in life expectancy in recent years."

And the current number of older Americans as a share of the population is just about what the founders of Social Security expected. The 1934 report of F.D.R.'s Commission on Economic Security, which laid the groundwork for the Social Security Act, projected that 12.7 percent of Americans would be 65 or older by the year 2000. The actual number was 12.4 percent."

"...the campaign for privatization provided an object lesson in how the administration sells its policies: by misrepresenting its goals, lying about the facts and abusing its control of government agencies. These were the same tactics used to sell both tax cuts and the Iraq war.

And there are two reasons to study that lesson. One is to be prepared for whatever comes next on Mr. Bush's agenda. Despite the tough talk about Iran, I don't think he can propose another war - there aren't enough troops to fight the wars we already have. But there's still room for another big domestic initiative, probably tax reform.

Forewarned is forearmed: the real goals of reform won't be as advertised, the administration will say things about the current system that aren't true, and the Treasury Department will function in a purely partisan capacity.

The other is that the public's visceral rejection of privatization, together with growing dismay over the debacle in Iraq, offers Democrats an opportunity to make an issue of the administration's pattern of deception. The question is whether they will dare to seize that opportunity, when for some of them it means admitting that they, too, were fooled. "

I find it sad beyond belief that the Republican Party, which gave us Abraham Lincoln,
now defines itself by the mindless conceit that it is wrong to raise taxes for any purpose. Zealots in the No-New-Tax movement such as political super-power Grover Norquist are demanding that politicians who aspire to national office sign a No-New-Tax pledge card.

"Republicans who raise taxes are rat heads in Coke bottles. They endanger the brand," says Norquist in a New Yorker article (August 1, 2005)

Not only do these zealots demand that politicians sign, but they keep track of backsliders and punish apostasy. "The next Republican Presidential candidate will be a Republican governor who did not raise taxes," Norquist has vowed.

Reminds me of the mindless zealotry that gave us Prohibition. There were pledge cards then too. It is the same mind-set, the same way of processing reality.

The No-New-Tax Movement is oblivious to what has been done with tax dollars: world-class state universities, breakthrough medical research, satellite technology, and the Internet, which was originally created to tie together government-sponsored research at great universities.

The No-New-Tax Movement ignores the need to repair and rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure--highways, bridges, tunnels.

It has no face validity. How can any conscientious politician sign such a pledge and thereby rule out the possibility of having to deal with some unforseen emergency or disaster?

But the zealots of the new Republican Party insist that all government is bad and tax is theft.

Those who swollow their garbage should be banished to live the rest of their lives in places like East Alabama where this ideology has been in vogue for years. There they will find out what the quality of life is like where precious little is available for schools and public services or frills such as parks, libraries, and museums.

Only a mature people will voluntarily tax themselves.

Today's paper published a piece by Max Boot with the silly headline
"U.S. Winning Muslim Hearts, Minds."

I have spent some time in the Muslim world, and was surprised to read the headline. Everything I have seen points in the opposite direction.

What I found was that Max Boot selectively cites a few statistics from the recent Pew Global Report Survey (which readers can check out themselves on the Internet) to make his claim. (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247)

Here's what the report really shows about favorable attitudes toward the U.S. just five years ago and today: Indonesia (from 75% to 38%), Jordan (from 25% to 21%), Pakistan (23% to 23%)France (62% to 43%), Germany (78% to 41%)

Boot is correct that there were gains in India, Russia, and Lebanon, but in Lebanon the number is still only 42%.

Boot did not cite Turkey, our traditional friend in the Muslim world, where the favorable numbers in 2000 were 52%; last year the number had dropped to 30% and in the most recent survey to a scary 23%.

Foreigners make a big distinction between what they think of the Bush administration and what they think of America. The numbers are really bad for Bush.

What is ominous for Americans is that the rest of the world is coming to dislike America as much as they dislike Bush.

What makes Boot's article so ridiculous is recent action by the White House. In March it announced that Karen Hughes, Bush's trusty firefighter, has agreed to try to improve America's image abroad, which is widely viewed--except by Mr. Boot, it would seem--as a disaster area.

If things are going so swimmingly in this battle for Muslim hearts and minds, Karen Hughes can go back to Texas because her services are no longer needed.

Mean-spirited Americans in earlier generations did everything they could to make it hard on the Irish and the Italians and the Jews and the Chinese and the Japanese.

Now it's the Mexicans.

Has there every been a harder-working more courteous people that tried to make it in this great nation or ours?

My friends in California tell me that Mexicans work back-breaking hours harvesting produce, working at restaurants as cooks, waitstaff and valets, taking care of children, cleaning people's houses, tending their lawns.

One of the stupidest ideas of the short-sighted people who want to deal harshly with these wonderful immigrants is to deny them the ability to get a driver's license.

Was there ever a more stupid idea than that?

The police in California have told me that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are driving cars without licenses, which means that they don't have any insurance, and there's no way of checking their identity if they have an accident or commit a crime.

One thing is sure. We are not going to deport millions of people. And another thing is sure. They will drive cars. So we are going to have to come to terms with their continued presence.

Here's my take on the situation. Let anyone who comes in and can pass the test and pay the money get a driver's license. That way, law enforcement people have a photograph and a fingerprint. That way, the drivers can purchase insurance.

One other point. Let's make it really easy for immigrants--legal or illegal--to make contributions to Social Security . If coupons were readily available that they could take with them to their employers (part-time or full-time) and the employers could readily pay the Social Security tax without a big hassle, we would be on our way toward solving the Social Security deficit problem.

Immigrants--if they pay into the fund--number in the millions, and for the most part, they are young people. It doesn't take a high-powered economist to figure out that if millions of new workers start paying into the system, it will be a good thing.

That's the way I see the world this evening.

C.R. Mudgeon

I have two good friends over in Georgia. One of them is Gene Griessman and the other is I.C. Lotts. Usually Gene Griessman keeps his ideas to himself, but when Rep. John Lewis came out in the Atlanta Journal Constitution against the Iraq War, Griessman said he owned it to Lewis to give him some support. His letter was published in the paper this morning.

Because it pretty much sums up my own position, I decided to post it here on my blog. It is below along with a letter that I received from I.C. Lots. That letter is just below Griessman's letter.

"U.S. Rep. John Lewis is 100% right when he says that we should get out of Iraq. The sooner the better. Many of those who, like me, felt that going into Iraq was a huge mistake have fallen into the trap of thinking that it will be a terrible mistake to pull out now.That kind of thinking led to the disaster of Vietnam.

We were told then that those who criticized the war effort were not patriotic, that they gave aid and comfort to the enemy. We were told that we needed more time to train the Vietnamese forces to take over the responsibility of pacifying the country.We were told that there weren't enough troops to do the job, so we sent in more and more American military forces until eventually there were hundreds of thousands of brave young people fighting and dying.

If we leave Iraq now we can depart with a modicum of dignity. What about the safety of those who supported us? We can offer them asylum if they want to leave. If we stay, things could get much worse. We have such poor intelligence in this part of the world that we have great difficulty telling enemies from friends. Our enemies become bolder and learn how vulnerable we are. They see that we can quickly win pitched battles, but we can't control the territory that we conquer

If the insurgency grows stronger, we may not have the luxury of a departure on our own terms."

Now, here's the letter from I.C.
Dear Curmudgeon,Still living here in Lonesome Valley by the Dismal River. Being July 4th and all, I've been thinking about this Iraq situation and thought you might see something from up there on the hill that could help me understand.If I remember rightly, in the first Iraq War, with the entire world on our side, with a just cause and a correct attitude, after we'd whipped them, beat them and had the entire Iraqi Army on the run, we stopped -- for a bunch of reasons which we were told were very important.I believe it was General Colin Powell who said we didn't want to enter that country, destroy that army and seize that land because --
We'd have to stay a long time to hold it
It would take a lot of manpower
It would be very costly in terms of money and materials
t would be very costly in terms of lives lost
It would make us the target of terrorists and insurgents
It would breed ill will for the United States because we would be infidels on Islam's most holy groundI think there were other issues, too, but mostly, we just weren't in the business of "nation building."Ten years later, Secretary of State Colin Powell told us we had to do what he had already told us we shouldn't do and we had to do it now. What changed? Did I miss something? Was he right then and wrong now? Was he wrong then and right now? Has he ever explained that?Has anybody asked him?Thought your view from up there on the hill might bring a little light to us down here in the valley.Your concerned friend,
I.C. Lotts

U.S. Rep. John Lewis has called for us to leave Iraq. He is 100% right

The sooner the better.

Many of those who, like me, felt that going into Iraq was a huge mistake have fallen into the trap of thinking that it will be a terrible mistake to pull out now.

That kind of thinking led to the disaster of Viet Nam.

Remember all the reasons that were given for staying the course in Viet Nam? They sound eerily like what we are hearing today: One, we were told that those who criticized the war effort were not patriotic, that they gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Two, We were told that we needed more time to train the Vietnamese forces to take over the responsibility of pacifying the country. Three we were told that there weren't enough troops to do the job, so we sent in more and more American military forces until eventually there were hundreds of thousands of brave young people fighting and dying.

What will happen if we start pulling out of Iraq now? If we leave now, we can depart with a modicum of dignity. We may even get thanks and cheers when our troops get on planes to leave. What about the safety of those who supported us? We can offer them asylum if they want to leave.

Civil war? Hopefully not, but at the end of the day, the Iraqi people will have to sort out things themselves.

What will happen if we stay? Things could get worse, much worse. We have such poor intelligence in this part of the world that we have great difficulty telling enemies from friends. Moreover, we seem to be making enemies by the minute. Every day that we stay, our enemies become bolder and learn how vulnerable we are. They see that we can quickly win pitched battles, but we can't control the territory that we conquer. We don't have the high tech to do that yet.

If the insurgency grows stronger, we may not have the luxury of a departure on our own terms. We could see another reminder of Viet Nam--Americans being airlifted off rooftops.

Here's my prediction about what George Bush, the GOP, and the hard right will attempt next, now that the majority of Americans have come to doubt whether the Iraq War is worth the price we're paying.

There will be an all-out effort to demonize the critics. Senator Chuck Hagel--a Republican--has broken ranks, plus a number of lesser-known politicians. He says that things are getting worse, not better in Iraq, and that the White House is "disconnected from reality."

That kind of talk cannot be tolerated by the mean-spirited people who presently run this country. And it will not be tolerated.

Hagel will be shown no mercy. They will dig up something on him, and if they can't find it, they will create it.

The White House will do all the usual things to stir up the gullible. They'll trot out 9-11, even though not one single Iraqi was involved in 9-11. They'll compare Iraq with the tough days of WWII and the American Revolution, even though there's no comparison. Logical fallacies never stopped these people.

Because these old mantras are working as well as they used to, the message will get nastier. It will sound something like this: Critics are unpatriotic. Critics should be tried for treason. Critics give aid and comfort to the enemy. Critics should leave America if they don't like it here.

And it will be effective. It has worked before--during WWI and the Viet Nam war. And it will work this time because so many will be chanting it, not just at political rallies, but on the talk shows, and in church.

It will divide America in a way that the nation has not been divided since Viet Nam.

And it won't be pretty.